Lets end up this once and for all. I wont regret if i and my family die but we will destroy USA and send it to oblivion
A mad man who desires nuclear war and destruction of human life doesnt deserve a comment, but to be send into a mental institution.
Tito, your words are those of a true extremist. Perhaps, like the Taliban, you should train your own children to become suicide bombers and attack the US? There wouldn't be much of a difference.
Thankfully, I think that most Russians disagree with you. Thankfully, I don't even think that Putin and his generals are as crazy as you are. They are more interested in increasing their personal power (and maybe also Russia's) than in absolute destruction and killing of innocent people.
Tito, your words are those of a true extremist. Perhaps, like the Taliban, you should train your own children to become suicide bombers and attack the US? There wouldn't be much of a difference.
Thankfully, I think that most Russians disagree with you. Thankfully, I don't even think that Putin and his generals are as crazy as you are. They are more interested in increasing their personal power (and maybe also Russia's) than in absolute destruction and killing of innocent people.
Yeah i know you think that of me. Wasnt surprised. When you put a knife on someones throat expect him to submit or fight back. In most cases people will submit but not everyone. When someone fight back you consider him crazy, taliban and ''he attacked first''. USA put a knife on Russias throat in this case, and we know Russia wont submit. Even dog fight back when you kick him. You thought you can come here and make fascist state without anyone to oppose your evil, but when Russia opposed and saved Krim you are al butthurt now and spam how Putin and Russia are evil, they annexed Krim. Really pathetic, i knew west is decadent but you really went through some limits this time. No respect at all. I dont understand how you sleep at night when you know people are being killed because of your fascist regime.
I don't want your respect. I would be insulted to have the respect of someone that can write things like:
Lets end up this once and for all. I wont regret if i and my family die but we will destroy USA and send it to oblivion
So you thinks atomic war and suicide bombing are legitimate means of self-defense? Even using children suicide bombers to kill civilians? What terrible knife was put to your throat that justifies such heinous acts?
I am no nazi. I would take Putin as leader over facists any time. I am concerned that there are neo-nazi/right wing groups in Ukrain's current government. But I also know that calling the whole Ukrainian government facist would be inaccurate as there are other groups (including left wing) that comprise it. I believe you are purposefully mischaracterizing that government when you say they are outright facists. So too is your characterization of the US as being facist.
I also am not an unconditional supporter of the US. I am - and was - against many of the US government's actions including the war in Irak (my prime minister was also against it), the war in Afghanistan and the current way drone warfare is conducted. I'm critical of both the current US and Russian governments and seek to support neither. My opinions are very much my own. Unlike you, I don't seek to indiscriminately promote one "side" over another and advocate the use of violence against civilians. Unlike you, I don't see the AW forums as a venue for some sort of propaganda war.
I've met many different people in my young life, and so far, I have not yet met a man or woman who've advocated friendliness, peace, and prosperity for all- Which is entirely possible, and would equal a much better life for every person on the face of the planet and beyond- but, surprisingly enough, the only person I've ever met to have thought like this was a child. Are they just innocent and ignorant? Or have they not yet succumbed to the struggles of this world, and given their faith and logic to hatred? In this thread, I see insults and death threats, over politics and war. We are truly Spiran as a society if we are to follow this rational cyclical downward paracide towards our own annihilation, and yet we refuse to change. We refuse to accept other cultures; To learn and experience them; To allow freedom and emotion above material value and conservation of the past. I devote most of my time to history, war, and politics, yet even then I believe that the value within a person's eyes are more beneficial to the populace of our society, than that of the value within a textbook, or the blood that has spilled our lands. If we are to truly progress, and be happy whilst being naturally human (in the essence of requiring meaning), than we are to express transparency and freedom in every aspect of life, and this means that we cannot be willing to sacrifice our blood over iron any longer. Our blood is strong- Stronger than iron. Tito, you cannot truly wish for America to burn into ashes, can you? Think of every good thing in America. No, I don't refer to money, jobs, technology, I refer to friends, faces, and love. Love is the only rational act, and yet all throughout this thread, we claim to be logical and rational...but only present hate.
I've met many different people in my young life, and so far, I have not yet met a man or woman who've advocated friendliness, peace, and prosperity for all- Which is entirely possible, and would equal a much better life for every person on the face of the planet and beyond- but, surprisingly enough, the only person I've ever met to have thought like this was a child. Are they just innocent and ignorant? Or have they not yet succumbed to the struggles of this world, and given their faith and logic to hatred? In this thread, I see insults and death threats, over politics and war. We are truly Spiran as a society if we are to follow this rational cyclical downward paracide towards our own annihilation, and yet we refuse to change. We refuse to accept other cultures; To learn and experience them; To allow freedom and emotion above material value and conservation of the past. I devote most of my time to history, war, and politics, yet even then I believe that the value within a person's eyes are more beneficial to the populace of our society, than that of the value within a textbook, or the blood that has spilled our lands. If we are to truly progress, and be happy whilst being naturally human (in the essence of requiring meaning), than we are to express transparency and freedom in every aspect of life, and this means that we cannot be willing to sacrifice our blood over iron any longer. Our blood is strong- Stronger than iron.
You watched again that vegetarian women propaganda didnt you? :-P
Scritto da Guest, 21.03.2014 at 19:06
Tito, you cannot truly wish for America to burn into ashes, can you? Think of every good thing in America. No, I don't refer to money, jobs, technology, I refer to friends, faces, and love. Love is the only rational act, and yet all throughout this thread, we claim to be logical and rational...but only present hate.
You have to understand my nature, so you can understand my thinking, wishes and behavior. Slavs have been killed, tortured, raped and mocked on everyway possible. Catholic missions in Poland and Czech killed many pagan slavs, tortured them on not imaginable ways. When Serbia was occupied by Ottoman Empire, you do know they took their virgin wifes first wedding night, husband could sleep with her second, that would probably be turkish son in 9 months. Do you know that turks impaled serbs on wooden stake but miss all the organs on purpose so man struggle in pain and agony for whole week without dying. Do you know how my soul feel when i remember what evil was made upon my slavic brothers since they all created their kingdoms all around eastern europe? Do you know how much that hurt? Do you know that after 400 years in occupation Serbia made uprising and liberated gained only autonomoy in Ottoman Empire because great powers didnt do shit to help. And after 100 years (1900) there goes one great power Austria to invade just liberated small exhausted Serbia and kill 1,300,000 of them. Then in 1991 i had to watch again war and killing in Yugoslav wars, disolution of Czechoslovakia, collapse of USSR, and western colonialists making Poland, Ukraine and Yugoslavia like DR congo, nigeria and south africa. Do you know how much that hurt?
Latest event - colonialists made crisis in Ukraine so they can change government and come to use resources(both human and earth res). Krim separated because they want to remain free and best to do is to join strong Russia and secure freedom + russians are brothers so merging is natural. And USA impose sanctions on Russia and threat to invade. Obviously we wont take it no more bullshit from invaders, it is time to fight back. Poland is made obedient watchdog, Yugoslavia divided on 1543034 cantons, republics, regions and states, and now Ukraine is turning into fascism. Next is Russia because other slavic states are enslaved already. It is natural that we fight back, we wont let to be surprised like 1941 and let 30,000,000 people die, this time you will play by our rules, and that mean nukes. We wont let you invade us and use nukes first, we got a chance to defend with S-400 and S-500 and your patriot missiles cant stop all russian nukes, thats our ace in the sleeve. For now Putin is waiting, surprisingly Krim separated(we didnt expect that) and asked to join Russia, thats a sign slavs wont give up their freedom, it is time to fight back. Now we wait east ukraine to secede and hold referendum to join Russia. After that you can take Kiev, Lvov and western ukraine/vohlynia with all those fascists and do with it whatever you want, throw it to EU and NATO as long i care.
Propaganda: No. I've come to the conclusion over the past few days that we, as a species, cannot survive another 5000 years if we continue going into large-scale wars and killing eachother over land, money, and resources like this. I understand your hatred, and I understand my own hatred for others, but we cannot let that hatred rue everyone's lives. This species needs to try working together, instead of against each other. I'm not saying give up nationalism, individualism, and personality; I'm saying that we need to be friendly, and understand that the greater good of mankind lays in it's continued advancement, experience, emotion, and existence, not it's folly, greed, power, and strength. We cannot request burnt iron for spilled blood anymore, is what I'm trying to say. We mourn and remember those whom have fallen, and we work together to make sure they have no died in vain.
No i meant you should show respect to us. Why would i respect a killer?
Not sure what you mean. Is the USA a killer or am I? Or both?
Anyway, I have great respect for both the American and Russian people, as well as their cultures. I just don't have any respect for you.
New selfmade government in Kiev is fascist. 2 their leaders are on UN most wanted criminals. One of them helped terrorists in Chechenya(backed by CIA). USA fund and support fascist government in Ukraine, they arm them, send food and money to bribe and corrupt more politicians and people.
They are killing innocent people on the streets. Using snipers and kalash. They imprisoned ukrainian army officers and stormed ukrainian barracks. They are making totalitaristic state in ukraine. They tried to deploy troops in eastern ukraine so they can invade russia(of course backed by nato) but russians(ukrainian citizens, civilians) in east ukraine stopped them.
They cant deploy troops in russian held areas. So they will make concentration camps to kill russians, to provokate Russia to interfere. Russia of course would be forced to save people from nazism. US will use that as ''act of aggression''. We who cares, we know US will do anything just to discredit Russia.
There are almost no facts here. Mostly empty accusations and half-truths.
The current Ukrainian government is a coalition of 3 parties and some independents. Only one of the 3 parties has neo-nazi elements.
There is no proof that the snipers were aligned with the current government or the CIA. In some of the protest videos, you see that the snipers are shooting on the crowds of Maidan protestors. You also see the protestors going into the buildings to try to remove the snipers. This suggests the snipers were ainti-Maidan.
As far as I have seen, the Ukrainian barracks that have been stormed so far have been taken by pro-Russian militia, not by the Kiev government. Many Ukrainian soldiers remain loyal to the Ukrainian government and have so far stopped the militias from taking their bases.
The Ukrainian army is arming up and deploying. That's true. But to defend Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russia has massed an enormous amount of troops in Ukraine and at the Ukraine border. Much more than the entire Ukrainian army. It's frankly ridiculous that Ukraine would even try to invade Russia. Do you seriously think that Ukraine would engage in a suicide-war to invade Russia!?! Is that really your honest opinion?
And concentration camps!? Again, you have no proof. Also quite ridiculous seeing as there are still many Russians living in Ukraine that support the current government. Also many ethnic Russians in the Ukrainian military.
Hahahaha. All started when they trashtalked Russia, and i started to defend it they ignored me and left(tik tok, unleashed, tunder, marcus, nastya) and now you basterds appeared to continue(grim, zombie, somethird), but you cant win in this debate because im telling the truth like it or not. Russia is helping ukrainian people in this crisis while USA is puting oil on the current fire.
That some people might have gotten tired of replying to your posts does not mean that you have "won" a debate. You don't want to debate. Why would they debate you? I am not even debating you, just exposing your extremism, lies and attempts at propaganda.
You are desperately trying to promote Putin's cause by spreading pro-Putin propaganda. I think it's very clear to all but the most indoctrinated Putin supporters here that you don't want to debate, just support your cause at all costs. And I think even some of them might be alarmed by your extremism. Again, for reference's sake:
Propaganda: No. I've come to the conclusion over the past few days that we, as a species, cannot survive another 5000 years if we continue going into large-scale wars and killing eachother over land, money, and resources like this. I understand your hatred, and I understand my own hatred for others, but we cannot let that hatred rue everyone's lives. This species needs to try working together, instead of against each other. I'm not saying give up nationalism, individualism, and personality; I'm saying that we need to be friendly, and understand that the greater good of mankind lays in it's continued advancement, experience, emotion, and existence, not it's folly, greed, power, and strength. We cannot request burnt iron for spilled blood anymore, is what I'm trying to say. We mourn and remember those whom have fallen, and we work together to make sure they have no died in vain.
Grimm, there are 3 parties I know in the Ukrainian government and they are all ultra nationalist, The Maidan, Svoboda, which means freedom (their leaders were banned from entering the US I believe) and Pravy Sektor (Right Sector). And Russia did put 2 of their leaders on the intl most wanted list. And one of them DID help Chechyens.
The Estonian FM and a former head of security for Ukraine, confirmed that the snipers were Maidan firing from Maidan controlled buildings.
Motherfucker got a bulled(fucking headshot) in forehead and didnt died. He doesnt even make any sound, it seems it doesnt hurt. Oh btw, he fought without helmet.
So, what you said, russians cant fight? die easy? need 10 russians to kill 1 german? hahaha
You americans need double-layer iron/chobam/plastic/titanium helmet, bulletproof west made of cryptonite and yet you wouldnt be able to fight efficient like russians.
American invasion of Russia would be a beautiful sight to see.
I never said Russians can't fight. I demonstrated with facts and history that they are not skilled at it.
- Facts and History: At best, 2 Russians soldiers dead for every fascist soldier killed, probably many more. USSR soldiers are Brave. Efficient? No. Maybe they are poorly led, maybe they are just poor fighters. Later events are inconclusive.
- Facts and History: Russia fights in Europe. America and Britain fight both Japanese and European fascists, like taking on one bully with one fist, and another bully with the other fist at the same time. Russia doesn't even attack Japan until 1945, when Japan is already beaten.
- Facts and History: USSR is stupid and/or coward enough to sign Non-Aggression pact with Nazis and wait for them to invade their home. Stalin is coward who thinks he is so smart. Knock-knock. Who's there? Hitler!
- Facts and History: America chooses to fight fascists in Europe. Britain chooses to fight fascists in Europe. Even FRANCE chooses to fight fascists in Europe. USSR gets attacked AND THEN decides it is time to fight fascists.
===
That bullet looks to be no larger than .22 LR/5.6×15R - not a military round.
Probably his mother shot him in the head many years ago because she couldn't afford to feed him, and he lived, and she couldn't afford another bullet (because she was saving that for herself if KGB ever becomes President of Russia).
He is having it removed now because of high-tech Russian Healthcare.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
Black Shark Account eliminato
22.03.2014 - 13:37
Black Shark Account eliminato
Zombie, but 20-30 percent of the whole German military fought England, France and America combined. when 3 people, 2 of them using all to most of their strengh fight a bully using 25 percent of his sttengh on them, and the rest on someone else.
I never said Russians can't fight. I demonstrated with facts and history that they are not skilled at it.
- Facts and History: At best, 2 Russians soldiers dead for every fascist soldier killed, probably many more. USSR soldiers are Brave. Efficient? No. Maybe they are poorly led, maybe they are just poor fighters. Later events are inconclusive.
Russians didnt believe germans will genocide them. Germans didnt killed captured russian soldiers at Tannenberg for example, why would they, prisoners are being exchanged after that war and thats it.
But germans in WW2 massacred captured russian soldiers and genocided russian people. Thats why there are more russian deaths than german.
- Facts and History: Russia fights in Europe. America and Britain fight both Japanese and European fascists, like taking on one bully with one fist, and another bully with the other fist at the same time. Russia doesn't even attack Japan until 1945, when Japan is already beaten.
Russia fights only in Europe. Where do you want Russia to fight, on Mars? Russia didnt had colonies in Malesyia, Latin America, Australia and Middle east so they can defend those colonies like UK did. UK had like 400 soldiers in middle east, 1000 in Cairo, 5,000,000 in England and 5 battleships in India. Yeah, right fist against one opponent and second against other opponent
- Facts and History: USSR is stupid and/or coward enough to sign Non-Aggression pact with Nazis and wait for them to invade their home. Stalin is coward who thinks he is so smart. Knock-knock. Who's there? Hitler!
That prove Stalin was smart and wanted to evade war. No one is stupid to go to war. Only idiotic fascists.
- Facts and History: America chooses to fight fascists in Europe. Britain chooses to fight fascists in Europe. Even FRANCE chooses to fight fascists in Europe. USSR gets attacked AND THEN decides it is time to fight fascists.
America entered war when they got their ass beaten in pearl harbor. England chooses to fight. USA sent troops to europe because they were afraid of soviets taking all europe and turning it communist lol, they didnt care to liberate europe, they just wanted to counter soviets.
That bullet looks to be no larger than .22 LR/5.6×15R - not a military round.
Probably his mother shot him in the head many years ago because she couldn't afford to feed him, and he lived, and she couldn't afford another bullet (because she was saving that for herself if KGB ever becomes President of Russia).
He is having it removed now because of high-tech Russian Healthcare.
5.45mm round.
The rest you said is obviously trolling, proof that you lost another debate. o7
2:0 in Ukraine Crisis debates for me, i can add that to my other scores and complete it to 52:0 (W/L)
1. Russia wasn't a signatory at the Geneva convention, and POWs could be treated however the captor decided. Russia also raped and pillaged German cities when the entered them towards the end.
2. Russia shared a large border with Manchuria, and owned Vladivostok. Instead of fighting Japan and it's allies with it's Asian possessions, which they had the power to do, they didn't.
3. Pretty sure Stalin was planning for war with Germany, but Germans struck first, showing Stalin was ready and willing to go to war.
4. Pearl Harbor was a failure by the Japanese. America didn't get its ass beat. USA saw Russia as an ally early in the war. They sent troops to help Russia, as Stalin was begging for help.
----
Laochra¹: i pray to the great zizou, that my tb stops the airtrans of the yellow infidel
Thats what Russia and China are doing, nurturing friendship and showing respect. They trade, hold military excersices and invite each other on celebrations. If democratic Russia and communist China which are totally different nations and cultures can be friends then anyone can. Yet USA and its allies refuse and keep going with hostilies. Thats my point here in all debates, we tried countless times to make peace with USA but they doesnt want peace. They continue to invade neutral countries and steal resources. Prove if im wrong.
Nurturing Friendship and Showing Respect?
Hahahaha.
- Where are almost all of the Chinese nuclear weapons targeted? Russia.
- Where are ALLof the Russian supposedly destroyed IRBMs targeted? China.
America didn't care, because they were no longer pointed at Western Europe. ALL[/] of the Russian strategic (non-anti-ship) bomber force? China.
Of course, Russian ICBMs aren't 'pre-targeted'.
- Where is the largest concentration of both China and Russia armies? On their common border.
- Who is China's military friend? CSO - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan!
Also North Korea.
- Who is Russia's military friend? CSTO - Mighty Belarus! Kazakhstan! Armenia! Kyrgyzstan! Tajikistan! China isn't even a member.
Who is assembled against Chinese aggression?
- Every significant military in the Pacific/Asia region, except Pakistan and North Korea.
Who would fight Russian Aggression?
- All NATO countries. 28 members, 22 partners, 15 looking to join. 50 - 65 nations, all concerned about Russia.
===
China and Russia basically despise each other. They unite and have common cause in that [u]almost everyone else in the world actively resists their military expansion.
Literally, of the 196 nations in the world, China and Russia have military supporters in 8 countries, including themselves.
4% of the world stands with China and Russia.
33% of the nations in the world are members, partners, or in dialog with NATO. That's just NATO.
In terms of military spending, UK, France, India and Germany easily outspend the CSO and CSTO nations.
This doesn't include the United States, which outspends all of these put together.
No friends.
No money.
A martial tradition which can be simplified to: "If enough of our troops die, we will happen to kill some of the enemy in the process".
===
Economically? China and Russia weren't major trading partners until the Ukraine crisis in 2013.
Now, China will spend US dollars to receive Russian energy supplies. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-insight-idUSBREA2K07S20140321
Long-term (another reason why Putin is a fool to risk EU disengagement over Crimea) this is a Russian nightmare: Russia having to nurse at the Chinese tit for dollars and euros is more than enough for Alexander Nevsky to wake up Lenin, and march to the Kremlin, and WTF !?! to Putin.
Caricamento...
Caricamento...
Black Shark Account eliminato
22.03.2014 - 14:11
Black Shark Account eliminato
Russia and China are both in the SCO.
Russia gave some land to China as a sign of goodwill.
Who would fight Russian agression? Any country that has the economy to sustain a war when OPEC is either
a) Gets its oil rigs bombed
b) is forced to boycott
They are both in BRIC, which means Brazil, Russia, India and China. Its an economic alliance.
NATO has a lot of weak countries, in terms of military. Belgium, Norway, Italy, Greece, Canada, and more wouldn't really like to fight Russia all that much. In fact, Canada's oil rigs could get bombed if they mess with the SCO.
Huge armies are weak if an economy cant sustain them. Or they dont have enough oil. Enjoy marching from Warsaw to Moscow on foot mates.
There are no ''halftruths'', just truth you dont want to accept. Ukraine gone fascist, USA support it, Russia aint. Parts of Ukraine doesnt want to recieve orders from Nazi Ukraine, and separated. Ukraine now wants(on US order of course) to wage war with Russia. They tried to bring troops near borders and failed.
Alright then, saying that the entire Ukraine government is facist is untrue. Most of its members are not facists therefore your statement is not true. It is a half-truth only in the sense that some of its members are likely facists.
By your logic, Ukraine shouldn't bring troops to it's border but Russia can? Russia sent it's troops into Ukraine! How the hell is Ukraine now the one responsible for trying to invade Russia? It's comical how you can twist things around like that. It doesn't even make any sense.
My extremism? I think you just want to provoke people, poking them all the time, now you are butthurt because you cant prove otherwise. Others ignored me so they can continue their trashtalking and propaganda, that mean they lost, they cant win against my arguments.
You're not making any sense. You're an extremist because:
1) you support and enjoy torture
2) you think blowing up an entire nation and dying in the process is a legitimate means of self-defense
What am I butthurt about exactly? What can't I "prove otherwise"? You didn't finish your sentence.
Others may have tired of replying to your propaganda because there aren't really any arguments to reply to. It's all empty propaganda. It's tedious to reply to empty assertions.
So what if i said i wont regret. I and my family are loyal to our country, we wont regret to defend it to the last. We love our land so much we will give our life for it without thinking. Sad you cant tell the same, because you are afraid of war(yet keep attacking innocent neutral nations) and doesnt give a dime for your country. You are like one of those people who sruvived WW2 by not going into army but hiding so they dont be recruited. Chickens and traitors. I have no respect for your kind. People without love, duty and honor deserve no respect.
I have never supported attacking innocent neutral nations. Yes, I am afraid of war. I wouldn't want it for anyone. I see what it does to people and it is terrible. I would rather die than having millions of innocent Russians (or others) killed. I would rather give up my land than see millions die in a fight over it. Yet I would still fight facists and those willing to kill and enslave others.
Propaganda: No. I've come to the conclusion over the past few days that we, as a species, cannot survive another 5000 years if we continue going into large-scale wars and killing eachother over land, money, and resources like this. I understand your hatred, and I understand my own hatred for others, but we cannot let that hatred rue everyone's lives. This species needs to try working together, instead of against each other. I'm not saying give up nationalism, individualism, and personality; I'm saying that we need to be friendly, and understand that the greater good of mankind lays in it's continued advancement, experience, emotion, and existence, not it's folly, greed, power, and strength. We cannot request burnt iron for spilled blood anymore, is what I'm trying to say. We mourn and remember those whom have fallen, and we work together to make sure they have no died in vain.
Thats what Russia and China are doing, nurturing friendship and showing respect. They trade, hold military excersices and invite each other on celebrations. If democratic Russia and communist China which are totally different nations and cultures can be friends then anyone can. Yet USA and its allies refuse and keep going with hostilies. Thats my point here in all debates, we tried countless times to make peace with USA but they doesnt want peace. They continue to invade neutral countries and steal resources. Prove if im wrong.
What makes you believe I support the US? Seriously bro, you should know me better than this by now.
I never said Russians can't fight. I demonstrated with facts and history that they are not skilled at it.
- Facts and History: At best, 2 Russians soldiers dead for every fascist soldier killed, probably many more. USSR soldiers are Brave. Efficient? No. Maybe they are poorly led, maybe they are just poor fighters. I do not know. Probably some of both.
Quota:
Russians didnt believe germans will genocide them. Germans didnt killed captured russian soldiers at Tannenberg for example, why would they, prisoners are being exchanged after that war and thats it.
But germans in WW2 massacred captured russian soldiers and genocided russian people. Thats why there are more russian deaths than german.
Again, no one disputes the facts and histories, more mumbling about irrelevant things and stuffs.
Russian military not good fighters. I don't say why, I only crunch the numbers, and report the facts.
- Facts and History: Russia fights in Europe. America and Britain fight both Japanese and European fascists, like taking on one bully with one fist, and another bully with the other fist at the same time. Russia doesn't even attack Japan until 1945, when Japan is already beaten.
Quota:
Russia fights only in Europe. Where do you want Russia to fight, on Mars? Russia didnt had colonies in Malesyia, Latin America, Australia and Middle east so they can defend those colonies like UK did. UK had like 400 soldiers in middle east, 1000 in Cairo, 5,000,000 in England and 5 battleships in India. Yeah, right fist against one opponent and second against other opponent
Facts and History: The British Commonwealth of Nations included Canada, UK, India, Australia and many others. In 1941 there were more than 1 million British Commonwealth troops in the Pacific Theatre alone.
Again you don't dispute my claims, you talk nonsense about Battleships in India.
Facts and History, again. Russia leaves WWI in the middle of the fight against Germans, makes coward's bargain against Fascists in WW2, which blows up in Stalin's face. Both times, they could fight the enemy, both times they make excuses.
Russia doesn't fight Japan until 1945.
Japan and USSR were RIGHT NEXT TO EACH other. But USSR does not fight. Cowards.
Japanese Empire in China and USSR were RIGHT NEXT TO EACH other. Again, USSR does not fight. This is geography, facts and history.
- Facts and History: USSR is stupid and/or coward enough to sign Non-Aggression pact with Nazis and wait for them to invade their home. Stalin is coward who thinks he is so smart. Knock-knock. Who's there? Hitler!
Quota:
That prove Stalin was smart and wanted to evade war. No one is stupid to go to war. Only idiotic fascists.
You do know that Nazis invaded USSR, and USSR wasn't even ready for an invasion. That is the exact opposite of both smart and brave.
- Facts and History: America chooses to fight fascists in Europe. Britain chooses to fight fascists in Europe. Even FRANCE chooses to fight fascists in Europe. USSR gets attacked AND THEN decides it is time to fight fascists.
Quota:
America entered war when they got their ass beaten in pearl harbor. England chooses to fight. USA sent troops to europe because they were afraid of soviets taking all europe and turning it communist lol, they didnt care to liberate europe, they just wanted to counter soviets.
Are you ignorant of history and facts or are you just a liar?
7 Dec 1941. Japan attacks USA in Hawaii, declares war on USA.
8 Dec 1941. USA declares war on Japan.
11 Dec 1941. Italy and Germany declare war on USA. Then USA declares war on Germany and Italy.
America is a Nation of Laws. Our legislative bodies (in 1941) were required to declare war. Japan bombing Hawaii didn't cause USA to go to war with Germany. Germany declaring war on the USA is what cause the USA to declare war on Germany.
Don't you know your facts and history? UK and France entered war in Europe because Hitler attacked POLAND.
USA entered war in Europe to to drive out fascist invaders, not Communists. Where do you learn your history? America never attacked Communists in WW2.
I think America was stupid to wait for war declaration/attack, but the American homeland was never seriously threatened at any time during the war, anyway. America was a democracy, and this is what the people chose.
There is nothing in common with Stalin's cowardice/stupidity. Stalin allowed the fascists into the Russian Fatherland
Stalin split Poland with the Fascists.
USA sent billions of dollars of equipment to USSR and British Commonwealth even before Pearl Harbor.
That bullet looks to be no larger than .22 LR/5.6×15R - not a military round.
Probably his mother shot him in the head many years ago because she couldn't afford to feed him, and he lived, and she couldn't afford another bullet (because she was saving that for herself if KGB ever becomes President of Russia).
He is having it removed now because of high-tech Russian Healthcare.
Quota:
5.45mm round.
The rest you said is obviously trolling, proof that you lost another debate. o7
Are you kidding? Ok.
I concede that it was not a .22lr, but clearly I wasn't implying this was possible. I would have assumed that the lack of .22lr on the battlefield, and the entire narrative about the mother shooting her son was absurd was enough obvious sarcasm.
Clearly, the round's jacket is removed later in the video, *after* the lead core was pulled, and the young man is very fortunate that either there was no penetrator core/core also failed.
Quota:
2:0 in Ukraine Crisis debates for me, i can add that to my other scores and complete it to 52:0 (W/L)
Quota:
1. Russia wasn't a signatory at the Geneva convention, and POWs could be treated however the captor decided. Russia also raped and pillaged German cities when the entered them towards the end.
2. Russia shared a large border with Manchuria, and owned Vladivostok. Instead of fighting Japan and it's allies with it's Asian possessions, which they had the power to do, they didn't.
3. Pretty sure Stalin was planning for war with Germany, but Germans struck first, showing Stalin was ready and willing to go to war.
4. Pearl Harbor was a failure by the Japanese. America didn't get its ass beat. USA saw Russia as an ally early in the war. They sent troops to help Russia, as Stalin was begging for help.
I am not keeping score, because I don't try to win or lose, only to bring facts and history to fight against lies, fools and propogandists.
Your point 1. has absolutely no relevance to anything we are discussing. If you want me to concede that the USSR was filled with war criminals and rapists, I agree wholeheartedly.
Your point 2. is exactly what I said. Russia could have fought Japanese fascists but didn't. Russia shared LAND BORDERS with both and fought only the one it had no choice to. It wasn't a war against fascism, it was a war of national survival.
Your point 3. concedes Stalin was stupid, but not a coward. We will meet halfway and both agree Stalin was stupid for not defending the Motherland.
Your point 4. is very confusing to me. I would ask for further explanation, as I am mildly curious, but since it directly contradicts your earlier statement, and since your utter lack of grasp of facts and history otherwise would be laughable if not so tragic, I merely
Grimm, there are 3 parties I know in the Ukrainian government and they are all ultra nationalist, The Maidan, Svoboda, which means freedom (their leaders were banned from entering the US I believe) and Pravy Sektor (Right Sector). And Russia did put 2 of their leaders on the intl most wanted list. And one of them DID help Chechyens.
Thanks for actually debating Black Shark. I appreciate someone that is sincere in taking the time to bring up actual facts and arguments without drowning them in propaganda. Kudos to you!
Don't you think it's at least a bit exaggerated to call the entire Ukrainian government facist? Granted, Svoboda has some neo-nazi affinities. Right-sector is definitely neo-nazi. I'm not disputing that some of these guys are shady characters. In fact, as I mentioned previously, I have many problems with the current Ukrainian government and there are many good reasons to be wary of it.
On the other hand, I think the Maidan movement itself had many other commendable elements in it (I don't think it's fair or accurate to call it facist). These included student organizations, pro-EU groups and citizens fed up with corruption. The two head figures (Yulia Tymoshenko and Arseniy Yatsenyuk) and the majority of the current government are not of the far-right either. Tyahnybok (Svoboda leader) only has 5% of popular support. He would probably be ousted from government in the next election. This is much less support than Vitali Klitschko (pro EU) and Yulia Tymoshenko (center-right).
If Russia would leave Ukraine, I think Ukraine could hold free elections and remove these facists from their government. Unfortunately, under threat of a Russian invasion, I fear that the anti-Russian facists will gain more support.
The Estonian FM and a former head of security for Ukraine, confirmed that the snipers were Maidan firing from Maidan controlled buildings.
I've seen footage of Maidan protestors shot by them. I've also seen footage of Maidan protestors shining spotlights at the buildings where the snipers were to try to spot them and disrupt their shooting. I've also seen footage of Maidan protestors heading into the buildings to try to find and stop the snipers. Clearly, there were snipers shooting at Maidan protestors.
There may also have been snipers shooting at the police. I don't know. It's very possible since some of these right-wing groups are well armed. Are there other sources than the Estonian FM though? Why are they a credible source on the issue? I don't know. I'm just curious.
There he goes again. You can call it propaganda, i call your posts and arguments propaganda and lies. We are two worlds and always will be, you dont want to cooperate.
Exactly what cause am I supporting? In my posts, I have shown a willingness to debate and discuss issues. I have criticized both the US, Russia and the current Ukrainian government. I have also pointed out positive aspects of all three. You, on the other hand, have never criticized Russia nor written anything positive about the west. You have not shown the least bit of nuance. Anyone saying that Russia = good and west = evil IS spreading propaganda. Same for the reverse (Russia = evil and west = good).
I don't want to cooperate with you. I want to denounce you. I am merely exposing the innacuracies and falsehood in the propaganda you are spreading and underlining your extremism. Again:
Long-term (another reason why Putin is a fool to risk EU disengagement over Crimea) this is a Russian nightmare: Russia having to nurse at the Chinese tit for dollars and euros is more than enough for Alexander Nevsky to wake up Lenin, and march to the Kremlin, and WTF !?! to Putin.
Putin aint risking shit. EU will impose economic sanctions to Russia. Lets see who will lose more.
I rarely watch CNN (on TV anyway). Much of the Western Media, when it is even aware, rarely is good at analysis (
they are capable reporters). Because most analysts are agenda driven, most analysis is biased.
In this case, my views are generally opposite of the Western Media outlets.
Ukraine is obviously a loser.
EU net win, with a short term loss.
USA and Canada net win.
China wins.
Russia risks a great deal.
The environment loses.
- Ukraine loses because whatever leverage it had with Russia over the pipeline to the EU, and the EU over the pipeline from Russia is now gone. Russia has the naval bases it needs without having to give Ukraine 'rent credits' in the form of energy. Right of way rent on the pipeline is based on energy transported. No energy to EU, less for Ukraine.
The EU has less motivation to take in the Ukraine, and NATO has, at least, no more motivation to accept Ukraine membership or partnership.
- The EU will pay more for energy, but this additional cost will bring greater supply stability. They will no longer be beholden to Russia or the Ukraine. Increased energy supplies are becoming available from the United States ('surprise'). Long term, the EU will be better off getting its energy from somewhere other than Russia.
- The USA and Canada will find an eager and stable market for their energy from the EU. The stability will promote greater investment in energy infrastructure development and delivery in the USA.
There is a possible loss: High-value, high tech manufacturing for American companies for products destined for the US/EU markets was starting to return to the USA, energy prices being a primary reason (China's decreasing value proposition being a secondary reason - think robots).
- China wins. Cheaper energy, economic leverage over Russia (China has never had this), and one possible ally in the Pacific against Japanese/Taiwanese/Filipino/Vietnamese maritime claims. Increased retention of manufacturing jobs that might have otherwise been repatriated to the USA.
- Russia risks losing big, long term.
Russia has never been at the economic mercy of China (in the 50's China was very much a client of the USSR). With no EU market, no US market, no Japanese market, who will buy its gas if it has a dispute with China?
The EU and USA have grown weary trying to bring the Russian Federation into the big-boy-club of grown-up nations.
With less political and economic engagement, there may no longer be any reason for it. With no reason to accede to EU desires for 'human rights' and 'democratic processes' in Russia, godspeed to the Russian protestors.
Russian-based companies who export postmodern products and services (Yandex, Rusnano, Wargaming.net, etc.) will find no market in China and diminished interest in the West - leading to less economic diversification in Russia.
If the economic agreement grows into a security pact, Russia risks being dragged into conflicts where it has nothing to gain, and very much to lose - Russia's interests have mild overlap China's in the Pacific, but Russia can find little for China to assist with in Europe. Russia might be dragged into a war with the USA over Taiwan, or in a war with India, or the Philippines, or Vietnam, all over China's territorial claims, but China has no capability to assist Russia with claims in Abkhazia or South Ossetia.
---
I don't see (that's why I asked) what Putin gains for all that's risked.[b][/b]
China support Russia over russian conflicts with Georgia, Ukraine, NATO, EU, USA. You can see it in UN assemblies, they always back Russian side and Russia always back China. They might dont have interests(russia in taiwan or china in europe) but they still support their ally.
I don't see (that's why I asked) what Putin gains for all that's risked.[/b]
I'm sure you're aware that an *abstention* in UNSeC is not the same as 'support'. Russia (post Ukraine) has well fewer extraterritorial disputes than China.
China is exceptionally uncomfortable over Russia's *precedent* for intervention - there are at least dozens of subnational entities in China yearning for autonomy, or non-Han-Chinese affiliation.
===
A poker analogy: Russia has a weak hand, but is playing it very well. From independence to recently, it leaned towards the West, and now leans towards China.
This strategy is only effective when the balance matters, and the country has something both parties want.
Yugoslavia and Ukraine are both examples of 'balance' nations that overplayed their hands.[b]
If Russia would leave Ukraine, I think Ukraine could hold free elections and remove these facists from their government. Unfortunately, under threat of a Russian invasion, I fear that the anti-Russian facists will gain more support.
Hahaha, now its russian fault fascists came to power in ukraine. This made my day, this is going ss and hall of fame.
Sure, go ahead. SS all you want. It's difficult for any government to hold elections when it is being invaded. Also, threat of war and war itself has always made facist movements stronger. I never said it was Russia's fault there were facists in Ukraine. I'm pointing out that the Russian invasion/threat of invasion will make that movement gain more popular support.
Hahaha, repeating that sentence mean you didnt understood(or you did but dont want to admit) the meaning. Well it was expected for american. Your government will use force against Russia, maybe not now but in the future, and when nukes are in the air it will be late to blame anyone.
I am not an American. I have mentioned this many times before. I have also mentioned that my prime minister was against the war in Irak and that my province has held democratic referendums for independence. The US has no such things as provinces and prime ministers.
The meaning of your sentence, in context, was that you wanted the US destroyed even if it was at the cost of the death of you and your family. Only today - after the third time I called you out on it - did you finally mention that this was only in the event that the US attacked first. That's a very important distinction. I guess you simply forgot to add it in your original post...
But i dont have anything good to say about USA, thats the problem, i cant find anything good that USA did in the last 20 years. USA isnt even trying to do good things.
That's just plain ignorance/extremism. Try harder. Take the time to look.
What about the US's scientific achievements? The latest advances in medical science, physics, biology, engineering and even space exploration. Most of these have been made freely available to the world.
What about foreign aid and disaster relief? There are countless examples of the help the US has provided to the populations of other countries. Not saying there are no problems there, just that there are lots of positive examples.
What about the US's cultural achievements? You seem to think that the US's culture amounts to nothing more than Hollywood. I encourage you to take the time to explore beyond that. You will find a vibrant culture that can compare with the likes of Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Solzhenitsyn and Tchekhov.
Maybe, for now, you prefer to stay ignorant of these things so that you can continue to perceive your enemy as pure evil. Perhaps that is the best way to convince yourself and others to "continue the fight". Still, I hope that one day you will make this effort. Then, maybe, you will discover that the world isn't so black and white.
Grimm, what if only the leaders knew that the snipers were pro-Maidan? Say you were in the Maidan, during the Kiev riots. And you see someone in a building, shooting. He may have shot one of your fellow Maidan people, so you think ''I should stop him''. Of course, you would try to stop him.
And why would a sniper fire from Maidan controlled buildings? Seems bit strange, really.
And don't you think that an high ranking official is a good source though? Kerry might just be an exception, as who wants to listen to someone who says ''Americans have the right to be stupid'' and talk like a hypocrite?
You may not be right on the ''If Russia left Ukraine the fascists will lose power'' bit. In fact, Anti Fascists might feel safer and protest more if they knew Russia dislikes (or you can say, despise) the current Kiev government. Imagine, if there was a country moving troops to a country which you are protesting against, and you like that country wouldn't you feel at least a bit safer? To know if you get arrested that invading country could invade even more and harder or at least force your release somehow.
@Tito, Germany used 70 to 80 percent of their forces in the Eastern front. Please don't stretch facts. Aussie sent 350K+ soldiers. Millions were sent to the Far East, but I cant find out how many of them actually fought. But there was for certain a million men or over in the far east.
China is exceptionally uncomfortable over Russia's *precedent* for intervention - there are at least dozens of subnational entities in China yearning for autonomy, or non-Han-Chinese affiliation.
Well they are communists and world view them as imperialist(the irony right?) and warmongering, they are trying to normalize relations with the world(especially USA, EU) but it isnt working well as USA, EU keep imposing sanctions(high import taxes, returing chinese goods etc), west doesnt cooperate. So China is pretty much in same position like Russia.
There is only Tiber as i know. Others are all 95% hans. Maybe chinese muslims want some form of autonomy in their desert, but that would be stupid to ask for ''separation'' only because your different religion.
Is someone Han Chinese, or Southern Slav due to any cultural, linguistic, phenotypical, or genetic (haplogroup) basis? Or is it a convenient political construct. In China, 92% of the population is Han Chinese. 'Han' is quite an inclusive designation ... let's leave that discussion for anever day.
Amongst and Within
Two examples most know are Hong Kong and Taiwan. Led by 'Han' Chinese who look for autonomy and/or separation from China generally. In both of these 'zones', there are also non-Han-Chinese who also seek some form of 'separateness' from China in particular, and Han-Chinese generally (e.g. Taiwanese aboriginals). Uyghur separatists, Tibetan Patriots, Mongols.
The Coastal provinces send much of their wealth to the North, and historically, China's friction has been North v. South.
On any given day, there are an average of 240 active protests in China.
'Outside'
China has Territorial Disputes with Pakistan, India, Taiwan, North Korea, South Korea, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines.
China has gone to war at least twice with India over some claims, and may face a coalition of rivals over its Pacific islands claims - while the Russian Pacific naval fleet is but a shadow of its former power, the AVMF hasn't suffered the same cuts.
---
The chances of a naval conflict pitting Japan/USA/Taiwan against Russia are small, but the consequences are large, specifically because the conflict will not be limited to the high seas. IMHO the biggest threat the US Navy faces in the region is not the Chinese navy, but land-based Russian TU-22ms. US and Russian Naval commanders know that the most effective method of removing the TU-22m threat is to attack these planes on the ground ... facing both navies with a use-it-or-lose-it dilemma.
Not really, Putin is playing wargames smart, he doesnt follow old soviet principles where in case of conflict you deploy large armies and make fronts. There arent many soldiers and equipement near Vladivostok and Far East, but there are many nukes and iskanders(iskander and some nukes near Vladivostok, other is on Chukotka and Kamchatka), so if war starts or conflict by american or japanese, Russia will just nuke the shit out of Japan, Okinawa and Pearl Harbor.
You have to understand that Russia is not Soviet Union anymore. Soviet Union was large, had strongest economy, large population, stable politics, strong military and therefore could afford to avoid wars like Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Iraq. It proved that was wrong and USSR shouldve stop USA for the sake of all of us. Now Russia cant play wargames with USA which has 800 bases around the world, strongest economy and 30 allies. Russian economy isnt strong yet, russian military is smaller and population is tired of changes, instability and misery. Thats why there is no space for mistakes, Putin knows that, Russia knows that. Thats why every threat imposed on Russia will bring DEFCON to 2 and there will always feel apocalypse in the air.
Thats why USA has more to lose than Russia, because it has stronger economy, larger(active) army, 800 bases, 30 allies and whole world as its market.
One merely needs to evaluate the number of Russians seeking to become American citizens, and the number of American citizens seeking to become Russian citizens to understand how even Russians would seem to prefer an American 'dominated' world.
So we agree that the consequences of failure are large - you call them 'apocalypse'.
What does Putin gain for risking 'apocalypse'?
- Naval bases he already had?
- A Chinese market he was going to have anyway?
- Putting NATO troops on his doorstep in East Ukraine?
- Risking war with the USA over Chinese (not Russian) interests?
And one final contingency I did not mention: Increased EU, US, Japanese and Indian military spending.
- Nationalism is in the air (again) in Europe and Japan.
- The average American ICBM is 44 years old, and is likely to serve until at least 2030. Because of the way the US budget works, spending on the military has dropped recently and spending on wars will soon be over. Some genius will realize soon that the American shift to asymmetrical warfare, dismounted combat, policing, spec ops orientation etc. will do little good against a 'classic' Russian or Chinese foe - more conventional spending towards containing China and Russia, and a replacement of the American ICBM fleet (allowed under New START).
As previously mentioned, the combined military spending of China and Russia is eclipsed by the UK, France, Japan, South Korea and India, without including the USA and the rest of NATO.
China can afford increased military spending. EU and Japan can easily afford increased military spending.
Isn't Russia already spending about as much as it can on its military?
Disclaimer:
This post is predicated on the reliability of the data used and does not incorporate different economic structures (industry vs services & high-tech vs low.tech & availability of supplies) that might impact on a possible comparison between the productive strengths of two entities.
Furthermore this post does not make a judgement about the actual military strength of the entities in question.
Furthermore this post was written without the intent to contribute to make a political statement, it's only purpose is to test zombieyeti's proposition and provide further evidence.
Isn't Russia already spending about as much as it can on its military?
As of 2012:
Russia is currently spending 4.4% of its GDP for military purposes.
NATO is currently spending 2.5% of their GDP for military purposes.
World Average is 2.5% as well.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
In 2008:
Russia was spending 3.5% of its GDP for military expenditure.
United States were spending 4.0%, unfortunately I don't have data for the entire NATO.
Source: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_landen_naar_militaire_uitgaven
(in Dutch)
If these numbers are credible, then the unused military potential of NATO exceeds Russia's unused military potential (considering only production).
Especially when considering that the GDP of all NATO countries eclipses Russia's GDP (nominally, but more importantly when adjusted for purchasing power).
This makes me come to the conclusion that zombieyeti's proposition -> that NATO is "more able" to afford an increase in military spending than Russia <- is well-supported by the evidence available to me.
There are, however, countries with military expenditure of 20% of its GDP (Eritrea) or even more (DPR Korea), but I cannot make a well-evidenced judgement on how the effects of such a military expenditure would differ in countries with a vastly different social and economical structure (Russia and NATO countries might not be comparable to Eritrea and DPR Korea in all respects).
Disclaimer:
This post is predicated on the reliability of the data used and does not incorporate different economic structures (industry vs services & high-tech vs low.tech & availability of supplies) that might impact on a possible comparison between the productive strengths of two entities.
Furthermore this post does not make a judgement about the actual military strength of the entities in question.
Furthermore this post was written without the intent to contribute to make a political statement, it's only purpose is to test zombieyeti's proposition and provide further evidence.
Isn't Russia already spending about as much as it can on its military?
As of 2012:
Russia is currently spending 4.4% of its GDP for military purposes.
NATO is currently spending 2.5% of their GDP for military purposes.
World Average is 2.5% as well.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
In 2008:
Russia was spending 3.5% of its GDP for military expenditure.
United States were spending 4.0%, unfortunately I don't have data for the entire NATO.
Source: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_landen_naar_militaire_uitgaven
(in Dutch)
If these numbers are credible, then the unused military potential of NATO exceeds Russia's unused military potential (considering only production).
Especially when considering that the GDP of all NATO countries eclipses Russia's GDP (nominally, but more importantly when adjusted for purchasing power).
This makes me come to the conclusion that zombieyeti's proposition -> that NATO is "more able" to afford an increase in military spending than Russia <- is well-supported by the evidence available to me.
There are, however, countries with military expenditure of 20% of its GDP (Eritrea) or even more (DPR Korea), but I cannot make a well-evidenced judgement on how the effects of such a military expenditure would differ in countries with a vastly different social and economical structure (Russia and NATO countries might not be comparable to Eritrea and DPR Korea in all respects).
Excellent points, all. I have an historical precedent which may be revelatory in comparing Russia spending 4.4% and 20% of GDP on 'defense'.
Current Defense Spending
(2013, nominal) EU-only: 274 thousand million US$, 1.7% of GDP. No Turkey. No USA, Canada, Japan or India included here.
Russia: 91 thousand million US$, 4.4% of GDP.
The EU currently outspends Russia by a factor of 3 to 1.
If the EU were to increase its military spending to 4.4% of GDP to match Russia % expenditure, it would be spending 709 thousand million US$, and spend more than the USA on defense.
For Russia to match this modest increase in EU spending would require Russia to spend 34% of its GDP.
Best estimates during the Cold War put (post-Stalin) USSR military expenditures at 15-25% of GDP. Planners really didn't know. http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5466. CIA put the figure at roughly 15% annual average. If the USSR spent 15% of its GDP on the military, and it hurt the general economy, imagine spending an additional 33% (to 20% GDP).
===
China spends 166 thousand million USD, 2.1% of GDP on its military.
India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Taiwan spend, combined, 175 thousand million USD. None of these countries spends more than 3% of GDP on the military, and Japan only spends 1%. If all of the other countries kept static, and Japan increased to China's level of spending as a % of GDP, the total budget for the 'Oppose China' grows to 240 thousand million USD. Even without USA's spending, these countries, all with security interests in the Pacific already spend more than China.
EU states are forbiden to spend more than 1.6% of total GDP on military. I know that because EU was criticizing Austria and Switzerland for their 2% spending.
I do not desire to debate other claims you have made, but that shall not be taken as universal approval.
However, I do believe that you got your facts wrong there:
First:
Switzerland is not a member of the European Union, but a member of the EFTA (which allows for free trade between Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway & Switzerland).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association
However, Switzerland is not partaking in the economic association of EFTA and EU, but negotiated its own treaties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_%E2%80%93_European_Union_relations#Treaties
Due to these treaties, Switzerland is member of the Schengen Area (free movement of people, capital, goods and services without customs) though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area
I just had a quick look through these treaties and I could not find a single paragraph that makes any reference regarding Swiss fiscal sovereignty. So I do come to the conclusion that fiscal policy (and, as a subset of fiscal policy, military expenditure) are unaffected by any bilateral treaties between Switzerland and EU and/or EFTA bodies.
So long you cannot provide evidence for your claim that the EU criticised Switzerland for military expenditure, I assume that you are mistaken. Your memory might have failed you on this particular issue.
Second:
Austria's military expenditure on GDP has not exceeded 1% in the last 15 years.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=au&v=132
In fact, Austrian military spending has been declining over the last 5 years from 0.9% to 0.8%
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
Therefore I conclude that even if the spending cap in question exists, Austria was not criticised for exceeding it. Because they never did. Again: Until you can present otherwise, I assume that you are mistaken and that you memory might not have been perfect on this particular issue.
Third:
To the best of my knowledge, there is no treaty limiting the national defense spending in the European Union.
I have checked summaries of the Treaty of Rome, Treaty of Maastricht and Treaty of Lisbon in a legal textbook and nowhere I can find a reference to national military expenditure. The relevant paragraphs in the Treaty on the European Union define defense as an important competence of the union but makes no reference as to an influence of the union on national defense spending.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union/Title_V:_General_Provisions_on_the_Union's_External_Action_Service_and_Specific_Provisions_on_the_Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy#Article_24
It includes a mutual defence clause, i.e. a clause that states than the states will support each other in the case of armed aggression and the commentary in the legal literature makes clear that there is an exception for intentionally caused armed aggression, i.e. that no community support is given for an act of aggression originating from a country of the European Union.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/mutual_defence_en.htm
Therefore I conclude that you were mistaken about the EU cap on defense spending. But I welcome you to present evidence that weaken my argument. I would be very surprised to find an EU regulation about national military expenditure and although I am not a legal scholar, I would consider it unconstitutional under Union Law.
One merely needs to evaluate the number of Russians seeking to become American citizens, and the number of American citizens seeking to become Russian citizens to understand how even Russians would seem to prefer an American 'dominated' world.
Thats obvious as USSR collapsed. If USA collapse and 50 state separate in wars, americans would seek russian citizenship.
So we agree that the consequences of failure are large - you call them 'apocalypse'.
What does Putin gain for risking 'apocalypse'?
- Naval bases he already had?
- A Chinese market he was going to have anyway?
- Putting NATO troops on his doorstep in East Ukraine?
- Risking war with the USA over Chinese (not Russian) interests?
You have to stop thinking so expansionist. Russia isnt america to gain foregign territory, waters, money or population. Putin have nothing to gain if he win in conflict, but he preserve Russias sovereignity and independence. Russia is only working to gain foreign money which is normal in capitalist world where you sell products(raw or final) or services in exchange for cash(foreign is the best as thats the influx of different currency, which is best for the banks).
And one final contingency I did not mention: Increased EU, US, Japanese and Indian military spending.
- Nationalism is in the air (again) in Europe and Japan.
- The average American ICBM is 44 years old, and is likely to serve until at least 2030. Because of the way the US budget works, spending on the military has dropped recently and spending on wars will soon be over. Some genius will realize soon that the American shift to asymmetrical warfare, dismounted combat, policing, spec ops orientation etc. will do little good against a 'classic' Russian or Chinese foe - more conventional spending towards containing China and Russia, and a replacement of the American ICBM fleet (allowed under New START).
As previously mentioned, the combined military spending of China and Russia is eclipsed by the UK, France, Japan, South Korea and India, without including the USA and the rest of NATO.
China can afford increased military spending. EU and Japan can easily afford increased military spending.
Isn't Russia already spending about as much as it can on its military?
Russia spend 4.4%, USA 4.4%. I guess Putin is copying USA, just in real money thats 90 billion for russian military and 700 billion for american military. Though russian equipment is much cheaper.
Japan is not allowed to have more than 100,000 i think, didnt check their status for ages. But i know they are forbiden to have large army and large arsenal of different weaponry.
EU states are forbiden to spend more than 1.6% of total GDP on military. I know that because EU was criticizing Austria and Switzerland for their 2% spending.
India is becoming true player who enters on the big door in the game. Theyre buying military hardware, spending on Nuke Triad, training for overseas missions.
USA dont have other (strong)allies beside England and France. While Russia have China as ally lately(since 2012) and it will have strong India in about 100-150 years. Brazil is in the turning point, they are about to decide whether to stay in US zone and sell the cheap bananas and coffee beans and take 0.3$ instead 3$ so US can sell for 30$, or join Russia, China and India where they can sell their goods for their price and not being criticized for their internal affairs. BRIC has been already made, good start, time will tell the rest.
If USA wants so desperately to rule the world - now it is time to strike(actually it was 1991, but they missed it), before BRIC gets stronger. Because in 100 years Brazil and Russia will have same population and economy like USA, and India and China will be 1# & 2# countries.
Mexico is promising, they made pretty good moves lately in internal affairs, while keeping low profile and not interfering in world events. 50-50% they will be american ally.
As much as i dont want i have to add Turkey as well. Their population is growing rapidly, their country is already fully industrialized, their army recieve more and more funds, they train well. But their politics are not stable and have demonstratitions every 2 days. Their president was in Russia without letting USA know, and talked to Putin about regional peace and prosperity. After that USA criticized Turkey for not calling USA to mediate. There is a small chance Turkey join BRIC alliance as minor ally or just support state, or even neutral(not helping NATO and USA in potential war).
Unintentional crosspost.
All I was trying to point out with the GDP talk is that Russia's military, without its nuclear weapons, isn't even a credible existential threat to the EU, much less the EU, Turkey, Canada and the USA. If Putin pushes, and nationalists in the EU start winning elections, and EU military budgets go up, Russia can't keep up with the EU's spending.
The spending talk is because I think Putin takes great risks with little hope of reward.
Now I put on the crazy pants, just this once.
If Nationalist governments take power in (any 3 of) France, Germany, UK and Italy simultaneously, NATO won't matter, the USA won't matter and Russia will have no one else to blame but themselves - because they put the Nationalists in power. These nationalists claim to be anti-EU, but I'm sure they would find immediate common cause in beating up on Russia.
Russia's real concern should be a resurgent EU. The USA never invaded Russia. China never invaded Russia.
Germans marched in French bootprints along the path left by the Swedes. Next time, Ukraine may not even be a buffer.
95% of those folks who contributed in science are foreigners, indians, english, germans, russians, chinese and japanese. They just came to USA to finish or elaborate their work.
Thats why USSR was superior in science, space race and all that; because it has domestic scientists, schooled and tought in USSR, worked and succeed in USSR, they werent ''imported'' like in USA. Thats the reason why russian equipment, rockets, military, machines differs so much from western counterparts, while in the same time there are no much difference between US, UK, Ger, Japanese products, they are all the same because of design and recipes passed from one hand to another without unique and distinctive mark.
We could also argue about the contribution of German scientists to the USSR's scientific achievements, but that would be beside the point. I'm not talking about the USSR, I'm talking about modern day US. You are right that many foreign scientists come to the US for training because it has the best institutions in the world. A certain amount of senior scientists (and especially trainees) are originally from other countries. But it is nowhere near 95%. Also, many of them become American citizens. Leaving that aside, currently, the USA's institutions have allowed for most of great scientific achievements in recent history (definitely in the last 20 year period you were referring to).
Heh, no way US cultural achievemnts can measure with Tolstoi, Dostoevski and Sholokhov.
Cultural impact and ''strength'' is measured by impact it made on the world. Like you said, Tolstoi and Sholokhov. They made impact on my life and maybe changed it, while i had fun watching american movies and i already forget about them 30 minutes later, cheap etertainemnt(although its more expensive than writing a book. irony again). From US culture i only know about Ernest Hemingway(maybe i can remember few more, but not instantly).
Reason is USA is new country and made out of mostly europeans who came to america to work and not make art(which is boring to the masses), and in the same time didnt and cant bring old culture from their country and continent. Theres nothing wrong with it, i just said a fact.
Hey! Hemingway! That's a good start Tito! Now make the effort and explore a little more! Here are some suggestions for some more great American writers: F. Scott Fitzgerald, Mark Twain, Edgar Allan Poe, John Steinbeck, Herman Mellville, Robert Frost, Emily Dickinson & Walt Whitman. And this is just "classic" literature. I'm not saying these guys are necessarily "greater" than some of the Russian writers I mentionned (in fact my personal preference would lean towards some of the Russian writers), I'm just pointing out that the US has a rich culture certainly going back to the 19th century. The US's modern culture is certainly even more diverse & rich now than it was then and it spans every art form. Hollywood and pop culture are only the surface of the iceberg.
World is black and white. Evil men tries to make it false colorful so they can exploit. Life is simple - live it simple. If you complicate it it will bring you misery, and might expand to your neighboor. Then if he complain, you will blame him for aggressiveness.
We are not convincing others to continue to fight, but continue to resist the evil.
Or, just take the time to get to know your neighbor a bit before blaming him. Maybe you'll find that he wasn't entirely black.
EU states are forbiden to spend more than 1.6% of total GDP on military. I know that because EU was criticizing Austria and Switzerland for their 2% spending.
Legalities aside, facts to the wind, common sense dictates the utter lack of credulity to that statement.
1. How could France and the UK afford both powerful conventional navies and armies and their independent nuclear deterrent on 1.6% of their GDP.
2. Since when is Switzerland a member of the EU?
3. Since when does Austria spend 2% on defense? (ok, this might take some knowledge of defense spending)
That's a good start Tito! Now make the effort and explore a little more! Here are some suggestions for some more great American writers: F. Scott Fitzgerald, Mark Twain, Edgar Allan Poe, John Steinbeck, Herman Mellville, Robert Frost, Emily Dickinson & Walt Whitman. And this is just "classic" literature. I'm not saying these guys are necessarily "greater" than some of the Russian writers I mentionned (in fact my personal preference would lean towards some of the Russian writers), I'm just pointing out that the US has a rich culture certainly going back to the 19th century. The US's modern culture is certainly even more diverse & rich now than it was then and it spans every art form. Hollywood and pop culture are only the surface of the iceberg.
